ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers

Home Page

Advanced search

Immigration Daily


RSS feed

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network


Chinese Immig. Daily


Connect to us

Make us Homepage



Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily

The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free

Immigration LLC.

Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here:

< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily

INA 214(b)

by T V Krishnamurthy

In my opinion INA 214(b) is violation of Human right as it condemns an individual as a law violator without trial. It disregards the basic principles of modern law that an individual is innicent untill proven otherwise.

In twentyfirst century we are in travel is a fundamental right. Unless an individual has committed a crime/violated a law, he/she should be free to travel without any restriction.

This letter indicates how INA 214(b) wrongly judges individuals without any basis, and there is no remedy whatsoever.

I would like you to help start a movement to repeal INA 214(b).

This is a real story of two siblings "A" and "B" and their saga of application for visit visa to USA.

    Common for both - age: approximately 25 years. qualification: MBBS. purpose of visit: to take USMLE step 2 CS. Funding: trip funded by father. height: around 5' 9". weight: comparable. blood relatives in US: none.

    Sibling A marginally youger of the two by about a year plus. slightly darker of the two. applied first and got 10 year B1/B2 visa. VO discussed details of education. Keen to go to US for residency.

    sibling B marginally older of the two. slightly fairer of the two. applied for visa a few weeks after sibling A, application rejected - applied again after a month and again rejected. VO did not ask many questions. Not keen to do residency in US - wants to stay close to parents. very upset as lost an opportunity to travel with the sibling on a holiday.

I am the father and know the mind of my children.

VOs very well trained in reading the intention of applicants "intent to immigrate" failed utterly in case of the two siblings. The VOs reading is contrary to the actual intent of the two siblings.

Some VOs are behaving like Hitler. Personal bias of VOs should not have bearing on the results.

Second time application should be an independant review. If there was bias in the first interview it should not affect the individual, even a foreigner adversely.

As discussed in some forums for E visa applicants, IMGs visiting US to take USMLE Step 2 CS are essentially on a study tour to aquaint themselves with the nvironment. They have an "intent" to take up long term residence in US for around 4+ years. However this intent is for future subject to getting residency in US hospital. USMLE Step 2 CS is administered only in US. Hence rejection of visa to some applicants amounts to violation of "equal opportunity". Any state should treat all foreigners as equal.

Denial of visa to an individual who has not violated the laws of the home country or laws of USA should not be denied visa. Such a denial "violates human rights".

Every youth denied visa without a reason is likely to become enemy of USA.

INS 214(b) appliaction is subjective and adhock. The explanation given by VOs is vague. VOs do not state the facts. Recently declassified document explains that VOs find 214(b) very handy to reject visa applications and explaind to review committee the need to keep secret the facts.

VOs do not use truth serum for fact finding. There is no scientific technique available to read intentions of individuals. VOs techniques of reading intentions of visa applicants has not been successful in stopping issue of visa to terrorists. Criminals are more capable of hiding their intent as against ordinary staright forward individuals. Hence the VOs trying to read intent of applicants is counter productive. It only leaves ill will for US among foreign nationals.

I have also read that 214(b) is adverse for tourism industry in US. There are complaints that group/family holidays are cancelled because some VOs issue vis to majority and refuse visa to one member, idea seems to be "to hold a hostage".

INS 214(b) with no provision for judicial review violates the basic principles of justice "innicent untill proven otherwise" and that too the judgment is passed by petty clerks.

It is a shame that US indulges in such unethical practices and claims to be free and fighting for free world.

About The Author

T V Krishnamurthy is an Indian Citizen of 66 years who has visited the US on four occasions between 1975 and 2000 for short duration. He is an engineer by profession who has assisted in the technical integration of a legal portal in India with Westlaw UK so that Indian caselaw is available world wide through Westlaw which is a Thompson Reuters company for three years. His daughters are both medical professionals aspiring to specialize in clinical practice and has both applied for the B1/B2 visa to take the ECFMG test in the US and their experience is what Krishnamurthy has written about.

The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.

Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here: